Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - AWA - 1966 Public Law 89-544 | 1966 PL 89-544 |
As stated in Senate Report No. 1280 there were three main purposes for the proposed law in 1966: (1) to protect the owners of pet dogs and cats from the theft of their pets; (2) to prevent the use or sale of stolen dogs or cats for purposes of research or experimentation; and (3) to establish humane standards for the treatment of dogs, cats, and certain other animals by animal dealers and research facilities. |
Statute | ||
| Bogart v. Chapell | 396 F.3d 548 (4th Cir., 2005) |
A woman was housing hundreds of animals in her residential home, the animals were seized and more than two hundred of them were euthanized. The woman brought a section 1983 claim against the county sheriff's department and human society. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed holding no viable due process claim existed arising from the euthanization. |
Case | ||
| Alternatives Research & Development Foundation v. Glickman | 101 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C.,2000) |
In this case, the plaintiffs, a non-profit organization, a private firm and an individual, alleged that the defendants, the USDA and APHIS violated the mandate of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by promulgating regulations that exclude birds, mice and rats from the definition of “animal” under the Act. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that all three plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit. Defendants also moved to dismiss on the grounds that the exclusion of the three species is within the agency's Congressionally delegated discretion, not subject to judicial review. The court denied defendant's motion, holding that based on Lujan , defendants challenge to standing failed. Further, the AWA does not grant the USDA "unreviewable discretion" to determine what animals are covered under the AWA. |
Case | ||
| CO - Restaurant - 25-4-1615. Pet dogs in retail food establishments | C.R.S.A. § 25-4-1615 | CO ST § 25-4-1615 | This 2020 Colorado law allows a person to have a pet dog in an outdoor dining area of a retail food establishment if several conditions are met (including, but not limited to, the presence of a separate entrance for the dogs and their owners, requiring owners to keep dogs on leashes or in pet carriers, and not allowing the dogs on furniture or fixtures). The law allows a retail food establishment to elect not to allow dogs in its outdoor dining area. In addition, the governing body of a city, county, or city and county may prohibit the presence of pet dogs in outdoor dining areas of retail food establishments located within the governing body's jurisdiction | Statute | |
| MA - Disaster Planning - Massachusetts Emergency Animal Annex | Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) | The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) is an all hazards plan developed to address the natural and man-caused hazards that threaten Massachusetts. The CEMP and ESF Annexes describes the system that will be used in Massachusetts to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency or disaster. It also identifies and assigns specific areas of responsibility for coordinating resources to support the response to an emergency or disaster. The Massachusetts Emergency Support Function 11 (MAESF-11) Agriculture, Animals and Natural Resources provides a framework for coordination and cooperation across state agencies and other organizations regarding the control and support of animal sheltering, search, rescue, recovery, and reunification needs and activities before, during, and after a disaster, or emergency. | Administrative | ||
| MX - Bird - Parrot Ban in Spanish (DECREE by which article 60 2 to the General Law of Wildlife) | artículo 60 Bis 2 a la Ley General de Vida Silvestre |
(Text of law in Spanish). The ban prohibits the capture, export and import of 22 Mexican parrot species. The ban on imports was needed because most species are shared with Central and South American countries and many were being imported and used as cover up for illegal trade. The ban was approved by Congress last April by consensus and it was originally drafted after a presentation of a 2007 report, "The Illegal Parrot Trade in Mexico: A Comprehensive Assessment." The report revealed for the first time the volume of the illegal trade of parrots within Mexico. An estimated 65,000 -78,500 wild parrots and macaws are captured illegally each year, with more than 75 percent of the birds dying before ever reaching a purchaser. The measure was passed in late October of 2008. |
Statute | ||
| Jaeger v. Cellco Partnership | Slip Copy, 2010 WL 965730 (D.Conn.,2010) |
The Connecticut Siting Council granted Cellco Partnership a Certificate allowing the company to build a cell tower in Falls Village, Connecticut. Dina Jaeger brought suit against Cellco and the Council to prevent the building of the cell tower. In her complaint, Jaeger cited the harmful effects of radio frequency emissions (RF emissions), and alleged violations of the International Migratory Bird Treaty, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), the Telecommunications Act (TCA), and the 10 th and 14 th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants moved to dismiss Jaeger's claims on various grounds, including that the Council was preempted from considering the environmental effects of RF emissions under the TCA. The Court found in favor of the Defendants, holding that the TCA preempts local and state regulation of cell towers solely on the basis of RF emissions. |
Case | ||
| Allen v. Camp | 70 So. 290 (Ala.App. 1915) | 14 Ala.App. 341 (1915) |
Defendant shot and killed Plaintiff's dog, which had bitten Defendant's daughter several days earlier, for the purpose of sending the dog's head to a laboratory for examination for rabies. The Court of Appeals of Alabama found that Plaintiff's wife's injuries were too remote to be compensable, when the wife was not home at the time of the incident and became excited and hysterical upon hearing of the incident several hours later. The Appeals Court also held that although one may protect himself or his family from injury by a dog or other animal when on his own private property or on public property, the destruction of an animal is wrongful when the danger of attack and subsequent injury by that animal no longer exists, and where the animal is not trespassing. |
Case | |
| Gaetjens v. City of Loves Park | 4 F.4th 487 (7th Cir. 2021), reh'g denied (Aug. 12, 2021) | 2021 WL 2933597 | Plaintiff Gaetjens filed a § 1983 action against city, county, and various local government officials alleging that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated after officials entered and condemned her home and seized her 37 cats. Plaintiff was in the hospital at the time. Gaetjens lived in Loves Park, Illinois and bred cats in her home. On December 4, 2014, she visited her doctor and was told to go to the hospital because of high blood pressure. Later that day, the doctor could not locate Gaetjens, so she phoned Rosalie Eads (Gaetjens' neighbor who was listed as her emergency contact) to ask for help finding her. Eads called Gaetjens and knocked on her front door but got no response. The next day the neighbor could still not locate Gaetjens so Eads phoned the police from concern that Gaetjens might be experiencing a medical emergency. When police arrived, they asked Eads for Gaetjens key and entered the house. Intense odors of feces, urine, and a possibly decomposing body forced police back out of the home. The police called the fire department so that the home could be entered with breathing devices. While police did not find Gaetjens, they did find 37 cats. The house was ultimately condemned and animal control were able to impound the cats (except for four that died during or after impoundment). As it turns out, Gaetjens was at the hospital during this whole process. After learning of the impoundment, Gaetjens filed the instant action. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. On appeal here, the Seventh Circuit considered whether the warrantless entry into Gaetjens home was reasonable based on exigent circumstances. Relying on a recent SCOTUS case that found absence from regular church service or a repeated failure to answer a phone call supported an emergency exception for a warrant, the Court noted that the "litany of concerning circumstances" in the case at bar "more than provided" a reasonable basis for entry. As to Plaintiff's challenge to the condemnation, the court also found it too was supported by the expertise of officials at the scene. As to the confiscation of the cats, the court noted that previous cases support the warrantless seizure of animals when officials reasonably believe the animals to be in imminent danger. The court found the imminent danger to be plain due to condemnation order on the house from noxious fumes. While the use of the "cat grabber" did lead to an unfortunate death of one cat, the overall seizure tactics were necessary and reasonable. Thus, the Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. | Case | |
| In re Farm Sanctuary, Inc. and Gene Bauston, President | In 2002, the Florida Elections Commission received a sworn complaint alleging the Farm Sanctuary, Inc. (a non-profit organization dedicated to rescuing and protecting farm animals) violated Chapter 106, Florida statutes. The Commission staff investigated the allegations and based on the facts and conclusions of law contained in the Complaint, the Report of Investigation, and this statement, the staff recommends that there is probable cause to charge the Respondent with 210 separate counts of violating Section 106.021(1), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person from making contributions to or receiving contributions on behalf of a political committee except through the campaign treasurer. This document is the order of probable cause. | Pleading |